UNION OF INDIA Vs. NIKNA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been directed against judgment dated 28.5.2007 passed by learned Single Judge in CWP No. 1038 of 2003, directing the Respondents of the writ petition to release freedom fighter pension to Respondent No. 1 w.e.f. 16.7.1981 with interest at the rate of 9% p.a.

(2.) The further facts as per Respondent No. 1 are that he had submitted an application to Appellant for grant of pension under Swatantarta Sainani Samman Scheme, 1980 (for short Scheme) which was rejected on 8.7.1982. The Respondent No. 1 thereafter submitted fresh application on 25.6.1985 alongwith Certificate dated Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 19.6.1985 of Kahna Ram but the freedom fighter pension was not allowed to Respondent No. 1, he filed CWP No. 423 of 1990 which was allowed by this Court on 12.12.1990. It was held that Kahna Ram was fully eligible to issue certificate to Petitioner since he had undergone imprisonment for five years. This Court directed to consider the case of Respondent No. 1 for freedom fighter pension and pass appropriate orders but, the case of Respondent No. 1 was again rejected on 3.6.1991. The Respondent No. 1 thereafter filed CWP No. 808 of 1992 which was not pressed. On 21.5.1996 Respondent No. 2 declared the Respondent No. 1 as freedom fighter. The Respondent No. 1 again sent application/reminder to Appellant on 7.10.1996 for grant of pension under the Scheme. The Appellant did not take any decision, Respondent No. 1 filed CWP No. 248 of 1998 which was decided on 29.5.2003 and Appellant was directed to take decision in the case on the basis of the case forwarded to it positively within a period of three months. In the event of the decision going against the Petitioner, liberty was reserved to Petitioner to approach this Court again. The Appellant again rejected the case of the Respondent No. 1 on 8.8.2003 vide Annexure PK.

(3.) The Appellant contested the petition and supported the letter dated 8.8.2003 Annexure PK rejecting the case of the Respondent No. 1 for freedom fighter pension. The defence of Appellant is that Respondent No. 1 has failed to prove that he is a freedom fighter and establish his claim for freedom fighter pension as per Scheme. The norms for grant of freedom fighter pension by the State and by the Central Govt. are different, merely the State has granted freedom fighter pension to Respondent No. 1 is no ground in itself to grant freedom fighter pension to Respondent No. 1 under the Scheme. There is no legal evidence as per Scheme in support of the claim of Respondent No. 1 for freedom fighter pension. Therefore Respondent No. 1 is not entitled to freedom fighter pension under the Scheme.